11–20 of 50 posts
I guess we need a new entry in http://rubydramas.com
You know, this strikes me as very sane and cogent essay into maintainability and rails. Where does the drama come form?
1980: "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Separating your code in functions that address single concerns is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in models, controllers, views, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the MVC orthodoxy."
2010: (and this one's verbatim) "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Using URLs instead of IDs in your json responses is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in HATEOAS, HAL, custom mime types, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the hypermedia orthodoxy."
I never could understand this attitude of overt antagonism towards people who care about architecture. If you aren't partial to such discussions yourself, at least show some respect for the people who, through years of wankerous discussion and debate, came up with and subsequently refined the pattern that propelled you to fame (or in the case of us mortals, at least gave us the tools to make our programming life a little easier). Now, I understand this particular guy is deeply invested in the MVC architecture. But that doesn't mean history stops here. REST (despite a long but somewhat underground history) and hypermedia are still in their infancy as an architecture. Many, many problems still remain unsolved and the process of debate meant to distill the good from the bad necessarily looks to outsiders as "wankery". Still, show some respect. The next person of Heinemeier's caliber will likely make their fame by bringing REST to the masses.
1970: " Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Organizing your instructions in a clear way is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in function calls, machine optimization, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the compilers ortho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, this strikes me as very sane and cogent essay into maintainability and rails. Where does the drama come form?
It's inherent in everything the Ruby community does - sooner or later someone will come along and write a 14 page diatribe about how DHH is full of shit and then flounce out in a cloud of opprobrium.
1970: " Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Organizing your instructions in a clear way is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in function calls, machine optimization, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the compilers ortho…
Not every new architectural idea is a good one. Lots fell by the wayside over the years. See J2EE or Naked Objects (I actually kinda liked that one). Bad ideas fail faster when criticism is brought forward which opens the floor to new, better ideas.
I guess we need a new entry in http://rubydramas.com
You know, this strikes me as very sane and cogent essay into maintainability and rails. Where does the drama come form?
I am not sure about how intentional that is, but it surely is dramatical in 'flame war eliciting' sense of word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every new architectural idea is a good one. Lots fell by the wayside over the years. See J2EE or Naked Objects (I actually kinda liked that one). Bad ideas fail faster when criticism is brought forward which opens the floor to new, better ideas.
Constructive criticism, yes absolutely. Labelling things as wankery and reiterating that you don't see the point aren't. All they're showing is that you're missing the point.
By definition I don't see the point in architectural exploits that can be labelled wankery.
I think some clarity is in order. While Java certainly isn't a pinnacle of language design, it took quite a few years of devolution to go from something relatively simple like servlets to the steaming pile of shit that is J2EE I believe he means to say EJB here, and not J2EE, because Servlets are a part of J2EE.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, this strikes me as very sane and cogent essay into maintainability and rails. Where does the drama come form?
To DHH credit, he always has fair points in his opinions, but the way he expresses these points is never diplomatic. For example, he couldn't resist making some blanket statements about java world and rspec. I am not sure about how intentional that is, but it surely is dramatical in 'flame war eliciting' sense of word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Constructive criticism, yes absolutely. Labelling things as wankery and reiterating that you don't see the point aren't. All they're showing is that you're missing the point.
Let me translate it for you, then. Wankery: Complexity brought on by the love of an abstract idea without meaningful practical benefit. By definition I don't see the point in architectural exploits that can be labelled wankery.